England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Wood's pace was not quite up there in that first over though he still was quick. The lengths weren't great. Fine half-century from Khawaja who is closing in on regaining the top-scorer position from Crawley for the series.

VTR wrote:Yeah, it's no more the pinnacle of Test cricket than the Champions Trophy is a wonderful ODI tournament. Though one thing I learned today is that the Champions Trophy does actually still exist!

Sadly, true. It could've been something really great but they'd have needed to have have all sides playing a minimum number of games against each other home and away. As it is they've just tagged a final onto the existing schedule and created a league with a convoluted system.

I was hoping the WTC could be the start of Test cricket moving to being an actual league and selling the rights to it as a package. If broadcasters want the rights to the Ashes or Border-Gavaskar in their respective countries then they have to broadcast the smaller series too. Then from that central package payments could be made to each Test nations to ensure players, coaches, physios, etc receive a base wage. Say 18 players, 4 coaches, 2 physios, etc to start.

That package could also take care of many costs with getting Test cricket played such as umpiring and setting up DRS at grounds. As opposed to most nations losing big money to host a Test.

The bigger nations would still have income beyond those payments through ticket sales, advertising, white ball cricket, domestic cricket (if they can get it successful), etc. They can pay their players more if they please. They can have more coaches and physios than the base payment allows if they desire. They can have a A-team to develop internationals such as India did so well with Dravid at the helm.

But those base payments would allow all nations to actually host and play Test cricket.

The bilateral system is so inefficient financially. Outside of a very few marquee series the broadcasters see little value in bilaterals. As such they can often hold out to the last minute and get them at a steal. Especially rights in the 'away' nation. Broadcasters can hold out and when the touring boards get desperate about needing the series to be broadcast at home they lowball. That even happened with the UK rights for the last England tour to India when Channel 4 threw together an offer absurdly late and picked them up.

GSC wrote:If the ball was in play for 85 minutes of a football game it would be a substantial improvement on the current fare. Currently its around 50-55 from what I saw the other day.

I really don't think teams are dragging their feet. Mark Wood literally gets to the end of his run up then turns and runs in immediately.

First time I recall seeing 'ball in play' time was one of the world Cups, possibly USA 04 or France 98. At that time, a typical match has the ball in play for between about 58 and 60 minutes, so it looks like there has also been a bit of slowing in football over the last couple of decades (and that is before the ridiculous amount of time taken for VAR decisions).

I do think 90 overs a day should be achievable - it only means speeding up by about 5 seconds between deliveries compared with the current rates, and that could easily be done just by having a little more urgency between deliveries. It would of course help if there weren't so many interruptions for numpties taking seats behind the bowlers arm etc.

GSC wrote:If the ball was in play for 85 minutes of a football game it would be a substantial improvement on the current fare. Currently its around 50-55 from what I saw the other day.

I really don't think teams are dragging their feet. Mark Wood literally gets to the end of his run up then turns and runs in immediately.

Yes, but the actual duration of a football game is 90 minutes. The referee doesn't blow after 85 minutes because who cares about the playing conditions. And as we've seen football is making a concentrated effort to minimise the time lost by timewasting. The same as cricket is trying to do.

All sports have a limited duration of the ball actually being in play, in any case. Most of the six hours of test cricket is waiting for a ball to be bowled. Rugby Union is about 30-35 minutes in play for an 80 minute game; Rugby League (the better sport) perhaps double that. American Football about 10 minutes over four hours.

Of course teams are dragging their feet. If they weren't then the 90 overs would be bowled.

Has there been a study of bowler injuries and their causes?   We hear of bowlers with fractured spines and other injuries.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:If the ball was in play for 85 minutes of a football game it would be a substantial improvement on the current fare. Currently its around 50-55 from what I saw the other day.

I really don't think teams are dragging their feet. Mark Wood literally gets to the end of his run up then turns and runs in immediately.

Yes, but the actual duration of a football game is 90 minutes. The referee doesn't blow after 85 minutes because who cares about the playing conditions. And as we've seen football is making a concentrated effort to minimise the time lost by timewasting. The same as cricket is trying to do.

All sports have a limited duration of the ball actually being in play, in any case. Most of the six hours of test cricket is waiting for a ball to be bowled. Rugby Union is about 30-35 minutes in play for an 80 minute game; Rugby League (the better sport) perhaps double that. American Football about 10 minutes over four hours.

Of course teams are dragging their feet. If they weren't then the 90 overs would be bowled.

Actually closer to 7 minutes in the NFL. As noted elsewhere, two of America's favourite hobbies combined - homicidal violence and committee meetings

Obviously, bat and ball games are slightly different with regards to time the ball is in play (and that in itself raises the question of what 'in play means - bowler running in, or from a ball being delivered). In 90 overs, say half the balls are bowled and not hit, so that's 270 balls that are 'live' for perhaps 1.5 to 2 seconds (bowler's hand to keepers glove). A defensive push maybe adds another 1.5 seconds between the ball being hit and fielded, while a more aggressive shot maybe a further 5 to 10 seconds (including time for the ball being returned to the keeper). Crude estimate - half the balls take 2 seconds, the other half say 5 . So over a 90 overs day the ball is actually only in play for 540 + 1350 = 1890 seconds, or 31.5 minutes (and that's probably being generous with how many balls are actually played).

Administrators should be looking for refunds to spectators for poor over rates rather than fining, far too heavily IMHO, teams.

Winning the Test Championship is fine and I'm sure I would be pleased if England did it. But does anyone REALLY care? Is it more important than any one Test win or series win? Bet many fans cannot remember who won the Test Championship before Australia did this year but will be able to recite all the details from this latest Ashes series in 20 years time.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/02/moeen-ali-ashes-cricket-tests-england-retirement

Moeen confirms retirement.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/02/moeen-ali-ashes-cricket-tests-england-retirement

Moeen confirms retirement.

Again?! It's like he's doing this just to taunt KP Fan

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/02/moeen-ali-ashes-cricket-tests-england-retirement

Moeen confirms retirement.

Again?! It's like he's doing this just to taunt KP Fan

Perhaps Moeen is doing an Elton John farewell-tour kind of retirement where he continues playing while insisting this is positively his LAST series.

Just seen a remarkable stat that Aus only bowled 34 Maiden overs in the entire series. Wow. England bowled 28 just in the first Aus innings at The Oval.

England have won four and drawn two of the last six Ashes series in England. Just wondered if this is their best sequence against the Old Enemy. Those half-dozen series have featured some fairly strong (in 2005 VERY strong) Aussie sides. Just goes to show how difficult it is to win away, particularly as tours are so short these days.

sirfredperry wrote:

VTR wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/02/moeen-ali-ashes-cricket-tests-england-retirement

Moeen confirms retirement.

Again?! It's like he's doing this just to taunt KP Fan

Perhaps Moeen is doing an Elton John farewell-tour kind of retirement where he continues playing while insisting this is positively his LAST series.

Just seen a remarkable stat that Aus only bowled 34 Maiden overs in the entire series. Wow. England bowled 28 just in the first Aus innings at The Oval.

England have won four and drawn two of the last six Ashes series in England. Just wondered if this is their best sequence against the Old Enemy. Those half-dozen series have featured some fairly strong (in 2005 VERY strong) Aussie sides. Just goes to show how difficult it is to win away, particularly as tours are so short these days.

But the last to home Ashes series were very different in feel - 2019 England only drew thanks to Jack Leach's heroic 1* at Headingley (plus a little support from Stokes), while this series rather feels like one that got away - first Test England were in a winning position with Aus 8 down in the 4th innings (having probably had the edge for most of the game), but failed to press home the opportunity, and of course the 4th Test was England clearly in a dominant position after 3 days but the weather and a bit of good batting from Labuschesne scuppered the chance of a win.

As for Moeen, unsurprising that he's retired (again) from Tests - I don't think he really wanted to play this series, but did so out of necessity for the team following Leach's injury and the paucity of other options. I'm still a bit torn on assessing Moeen's Test career (unlike his ODI career, where he has been an essential bowler usually in partnership with Rasheed through the middle of an innings, and occasionally useful batsman / finisher, even if some of the stats don't necessarily back that up) - he's had spells and performances against certain teams )a;ways seems to trouble South Africa)where he has looked a Test quality spin bowler, but he's always tended to be expensive while bowling some absolute jaffas. Similarly, he's undoubtedly a very talented stroke player but rarely a reliable contributor with the bat - when he's in form, he looks a lot better than a guy averaging under 30.

Interestingly, only about a quarter of Mo's first class runs came in Tests, while more than half his balls bowled and wickets were (68 tests in 202 first class games, so about 1/3 of his matches) - shows how England changed him as a player from a batsman and occasional bowler to someone who was selected principally for his bowling.

dummy_half wrote:[

But the last to home Ashes series were very different in feel - 2019 England only drew thanks to Jack Leach's heroic 1* at Headingley (plus a little support from Stokes), while this series rather feels like one that got away - first Test England were in a winning position with Aus 8 down in the 4th innings (having probably had the edge for most of the game), but failed to press home the opportunity, and of course the 4th Test was England clearly in a dominant position after 3 days but the weather and a bit of good batting from Labuschesne scuppered the chance of a win.

I tend to be alone in thinking that England should have won the 2019 series. They were well on top in the first match where Australia were three down in the second innings still 15 runs behind at which point the loss of Anderson meant having to overbowl Mo which proved telling. They were well on top of the second match but rain curtailed that one. England were in good positions to win four of the matches whilst for Australia it was only really three of them.

Talk of Moeen's role with England leads on to look at players who started being dominant in one discipline but then went on to great things in another aspect of the game.

Two prominent ones for England were Bob Woolmer and Wilfred Rhodes. Woolmer started as a bowler who could bat a bit. I think he came in around number eight to begin with.

Of course, Woolmer moved up to number one - with considerable success. Rhodes, a great slow bowler, started at number 11 before he too moved up to open.

Indeed the Yorkshireman formed a formidable opening partnership with Jack Hobbs, a pairing whose success was to be overshadowed by the immortal Hobbs-Sutcliffe duo.

Rhodes indeed holds the 1st and 10th-wicket partnership records against Australia. Both these records could eventually go, but I doubt whether the same guy will ever hold both again.

For other countries, Jacques Kallis, if memory serves, tended to bowl less and less as his batting took over but still departed with remarkable all-round figures.

Injury rather than inclination has forced Stokes to be regarded primarily as a batsman, although he, hopefully, will be fit enough soon to bowl regularly again.

Sobers was seen as mainly a spin bowler when he broke into the Windies side aged 17.

I've probably overlooked others who fall into this category. Those who moved from one batting position to another and made a real fist of it (Gooch is a prime example) can perhaps wait for another thread.

Steve Smith! The Warne replacement who turned out more like Bradman

dummy_half wrote:As for Moeen, unsurprising that he's retired (again) from Tests - I don't think he really wanted to play this series, but did so out of necessity for the team following Leach's injury and the paucity of other options. I'm still a bit torn on assessing Moeen's Test career (unlike his ODI career, where he has been an essential bowler usually in partnership with Rasheed through the middle of an innings, and occasionally useful batsman / finisher, even if some of the stats don't necessarily back that up) - he's had spells and performances against certain teams )a;ways seems to trouble South Africa)where he has looked a Test quality spin bowler, but he's always tended to be expensive while bowling some absolute jaffas. Similarly, he's undoubtedly a very talented stroke player but rarely a reliable contributor with the bat - when he's in form, he looks a lot better than a guy averaging under 30.

Interestingly, only about a quarter of Mo's first class runs came in Tests, while more than half his balls bowled and wickets were (68 tests in 202 first class games, so about 1/3 of his matches) - shows how England changed him as a player from a batsman and occasional bowler to someone who was selected principally for his bowling.

Moeen's final career stats give a pretty fair reflection of his test career - batting average of 28, bowling average of 37 with an economy over 3.5. Capable of good innings early in his test career (I think all five of his centuries were 2017 or earlier), but once he was figured out by the opposition he couldn't adapt. His last 27 tests (about 40% of his career) saw him average under 20 with the bat. With the ball he could be good in turning conditions, and his fans would hype these contributions massively, but with his lack of control you wouldn't want to give him the ball and trust him to tie down an end. Below average in the fielding department and very fragile mentally.

Most overrated English test cricketer I've ever seen, personally. That's not to say he didn't have his moments, because he certainly did, but he wasn't this world-class match winner that his fans would like to have us believe. Neither was he the second best English spinner of this century. His comeback for Australia was extremely ill-advised and his selection cost England the first test. His bowling average for the series was just north of 50, which is what I expected. Not knocking Moeen for that. If you get called back you're going to accept, aren't you? Guessing he's an extremely likable fellow, as room will always be made for him, whereas other players struggle to get in.

Duty281 wrote:....

Moeen's final career stats give a pretty fair reflection of his test career - batting average of 28, bowling average of 37 with an economy over 3.5. Capable of good innings early in his test career (I think all five of his centuries were 2017 or earlier), but once he was figured out by the opposition he couldn't adapt. His last 27 tests (about 40% of his career) saw him average under 20 with the bat. With the ball he could be good in turning conditions, and his fans would hype these contributions massively, but with his lack of control you wouldn't want to give him the ball and trust him to tie down an end. Below average in the fielding department and very fragile mentally.

Most overrated English test cricketer I've ever seen, personally. That's not to say he didn't have his moments, because he certainly did, but he wasn't this world-class match winner that his fans would like to have us believe. Neither was he the second best English spinner of this century. His comeback for Australia was extremely ill-advised and his selection cost England the first test. His bowling average for the series was just north of 50, which is what I expected. Not knocking Moeen for that. If you get called back you're going to accept, aren't you? Guessing he's an extremely likable fellow, as room will always be made for him, whereas other players struggle to get in.[/quote]

First bold - probably the biggest knock against Mo as a test bowler. Never really mastered the art of bowling dry, particularly in first innings or in non-spinning conditions. Bowling a bit faster and flatter never seemed to be in his repertoire, and because he always gave the ball a big tweak his line and length were often inconsistent.

Don't think anyone (at least any England fans on here) ever portrayed Mo as a word beater, just arguably the best selection available for large portions of his career (especially pre 2017 when his batting returns were better). Obviously Swann is the best English spinner this century (and one of probably the best 3 or 4 we've ever had), but second best is probably between Mo and Leach, neither of whom are without flaws OI've excluded Rashid from this consideratin as he had not much of a Test career).

It's a shame Mo just doesn't have the mentality needed as even in this series he's looked a decent bat. But then he loses concentration or falls for the short ball trap twice in two overs and throws it away. Better than a test average of 28 technically but then gets himself out doing something daft

dummy_half wrote:First bold - probably the biggest knock against Mo as a test bowler. Never really mastered the art of bowling dry, particularly in first innings or in non-spinning conditions. Bowling a bit faster and flatter never seemed to be in his repertoire, and because he always gave the ball a big tweak his line and length were often inconsistent.

Don't think anyone (at least any England fans on here) ever portrayed Mo as a word beater, just arguably the best selection available for large portions of his career (especially pre 2017 when his batting returns were better). Obviously Swann is the best English spinner this century (and one of probably the best 3 or 4 we've ever had), but second best is probably between Mo and Leach, neither of whom are without flaws OI've excluded Rashid from this consideratin as he had not much of a Test career).

Yeah, Swann the undisputed number one, certainly! I'd probably go for Monty as second best. 167 wickets at just under 35. Could be a frustrating player at times because he very much relied on confidence, but averaged under 29 in England, and played a big part in arguably England's greatest ever test series win of the century in India in 2012. When Monty was on it, he was really on it, illustrated by 12 five wicket hauls.

Leach would probably edge into 3rd, of course there's still more to come with him. I'm not fully convinced yet whether he'll kick on, but we'll see. Moeen then in 4th, with Giles in 5th probably.

I kinda see Rashid's test career as unfulfilled, Root never seemed to like him much, but it's a worthwhile trade off considering he's been the best spinner ever for England in limited overs cricket.

Yeah, got to be Monty second, couldn't really get in the side once Swann emerged unless a second spinner was needed, but that's still a decent haul of wickets, and a great bowler to watch when on form.

Croft and Tuffers just about sneak into this century as well at the end of their careers. Both good bowlers that suffered badly from inconsistent selection decisions

Soul Requiem wrote:

dummy_half wrote:[

But the last to home Ashes series were very different in feel - 2019 England only drew thanks to Jack Leach's heroic 1* at Headingley (plus a little support from Stokes), while this series rather feels like one that got away - first Test England were in a winning position with Aus 8 down in the 4th innings (having probably had the edge for most of the game), but failed to press home the opportunity, and of course the 4th Test was England clearly in a dominant position after 3 days but the weather and a bit of good batting from Labuschesne scuppered the chance of a win.

I tend to be alone in thinking that England should have won the 2019 series. They were well on top in the first match where Australia were three down in the second innings still 15 runs behind at which point the loss of Anderson meant having to overbowl Mo which proved telling. They were well on top of the second match but rain curtailed that one. England were in good positions to win four of the matches whilst for Australia it was only really three of them.

Wouldn't go as far as Soul in suggesting England should have won the series : but at the same time I do think that - similar to this series - a 2-2 result was appropriate.

Australia won two matches comfortably , England one ; and Stokes' brilliance burgled the other. But England were indeed well on top at Lord's and likely had won that had it not been for the weather. (I don't really worry so much about the Anderson injury at Edgbaston : bad luck indeed and almost certainly made a huge difference to the result there ; but injuries are unfortunately just part of the game . Unless you are "lucky" enough to get concussed !) So overall I reckon a drawn series was about right.

As for Moeen's "final" retirement : I am still waiting for KP_fan to appear with a closing eulogy ; but note several assessments above which are mostly fair - and will obviously vary from person to person. What are opinions after all ?

Will quibble with one Duty claim though : "His selection cost England the First Test ". Really ?

Firstly we cannot know what the alternate selection - whoever that may have been ! - would have done.  And perhaps more to the point , given the job he did at the Oval on day five , I think it would be more accurate to say "His finger injury (possibly) cost England the First Test" .

Anyway I will say that although I'd have preferred England to look elsewhere rather than bring Mo back from his white ball only plan , I think he did a decent if limited job trying to fill a Leach-sized hole in the attack - with mixed actual results. And he deserves a lot of credit for taking on the number three batting position with some success. Who knows ?  If he hadn't done that , and allowed Harry Brook to move back down the order at Headingley in the second innings , might the series have even been lost ?

Best wishes to him now as he concentrates on the shorter versions of the game.  And I hope he can fill a role for England one last time in the approaching WC

I think I'm right in saying England had their highest-ever lowest score in an Ashes series - 237 at Leeds.

I wonder whether BazBall in which everyone comes in and attacks like mad is leading/will lead to such "high lows".

That Headingley high, or low if you want, was still enough for victory. At Lord's England actually made 300 in each innings and still lost which must be quite unusual.

One of the dangers of Bazball though is that not only does it give a side time to win but also plenty of time to lose. Runs may be on the board in goodly numbers but innings are short and the bowlers have less time to rest.

You can see opponents using this to concoct long, slow innings to tire the England bowlers. Australia looked as if they were trying to do this at The Oval on that somnolent second morning. It didn't work then but it might in the future.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-alex-hales-international-retirement-1390832

Alex Hales announces his international retirement, so definitely no prospect of him making the World Cup squad later this year. 70 ODIs and 75 T20Is, also a handful of tests, but a career that was unfulfilled due to off the field transgressions. He missed out on being a part of England's 2019 ODI WC win, which will be a mammoth regret for him.

Despite that, he ended on a high for England with his last international game being the T20 World Cup final, stepping into the breach when Bairstow was injured. And though Hales didn't make much of a contribution in the final, his part in the semi-final destruction of India was sublime.

Hales was also the first Englishman to score an international T20 hundred, and has the second highest individual score by an Englishman in ODIs (171). I think we'll remember him as one of the first destructive limited-overs batsmen that England have produced over the past decade and a bit, and that with better management and better guidance perhaps Hales' international career could have been even better?

Duty281 wrote:https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-alex-hales-international-retirement-1390832

Alex Hales announces his international retirement, so definitely no prospect of him making the World Cup squad later this year. 70 ODIs and 75 T20Is, also a handful of tests, but a career that was unfulfilled due to off the field transgressions. He missed out on being a part of England's 2019 ODI WC win, which will be a mammoth regret for him.

Despite that, he ended on a high for England with his last international game being the T20 World Cup final, stepping into the breach when Bairstow was injured. And though Hales didn't make much of a contribution in the final, his part in the semi-final destruction of India was sublime.

Hales was also the first Englishman to score an international T20 hundred, and has the second highest individual score by an Englishman in ODIs (171). I think we'll remember him as one of the first destructive limited-overs batsmen that England have produced over the past decade and a bit, and that with better management and better guidance perhaps Hales' international career could have been even better?

Undoubtedly one of the prototypical aggressive top order players - would we have had Bairstow and Roy playing as they do (did) without Hales? Probably not.

How much Hales is a bit of unfulfilled talent is the fault of management / coaching and how much is just down to Hales character and temperament is a bit of an unknown. Certainly seemed to be a bit of a magnet for trouble throughout his career, and never quite managed to find the redemption that Stokes did.

Would his Test career have gone differently with a Bazball-minded coach? I recall him getting a few runs on occasion, but at a strike rate that made Alistair Cook look fluent, as though he had been told he had to play like a 'proper opener' and so was scared of taking on the shots that served him so well in ODIs

I think Alex Hales pretty much has to take responsibility for some of the decisions Alex Hales had made. Don't think there's much coaches/captains could've done about some of them

It also gets glossed over a bit that Hales wasn’t in England’s best XI going into the 2019 WC. It had reached the point where Bairstow and Roy were untouchable as openers - and no way was he displacing Root at 3. He’d have been a better back up than Vince, but that is all he would have been.

Just for the pure carnage, it is a shame we didn’t see an ODI top 3 of him YJB, Roy and Hales more though. Obviously I’d take Root over Hales, but if you want to shoot for the stars occasionally that top 3 makes 500 more likely but also 120 more likely! Hales was PotM batting at 3 in the 481 game vs Aus - some of the most ludicrous hitting you will see.

JDizzle wrote:It also gets glossed over a bit that Hales wasn’t in England’s best XI going into the 2019 WC. It had reached the point where Bairstow and Roy were untouchable as openers - and no way was he displacing Root at 3. He’d have been a better back up than Vince, but that is all he would have been.

Just for the pure carnage, it is a shame we didn’t see an ODI top 3 of him YJB, Roy and Hales more though. Obviously I’d take Root over Hales, but if you want to shoot for the stars occasionally that top 3 makes 500 more likely but also 120 more likely! Hales was PotM  batting at 3 in the 481 game vs Aus - some of the most ludicrous hitting you will see.

With an in form Morgan at 4, Stokes and Buttler arquing over 5-6. Could have been very messy for the opposition if they all fired.

GSC wrote:I think Alex Hales pretty much has to take responsibility for some of the decisions Alex Hales had made. Don't think there's much coaches/captains could've done about some of them

Yes agree with this - got the biggest tournament of your life upcoming, which you've been building towards for 3-4 years and can't stay away from the drugs...there isn't anybody to blame there but yourself (a 2nd failed drugs test at that too, so didn't even learn...)
As JDizzle says, he was unlikely even by then to be in the starting XI, but would have been a much better backup than Vince.
Don't think he was in contention to go to India this winter at all - he hasn't even played a list A 50 over game since 2019!

Very very good white ball bat, and glad he got some redemption last winter in the T20 World Cup. I think for me his best knock was 116* against Sri Lanka in the 2014 T20 World Cup, when England were 0-2 off 1 over chasing 190. Brutal stuff

According to the Telegraph, England are planning on taking Rooney Archer to the World Cup even if he isn't fully fit for the start of the tournament, with the hope being that he can play a part in the later stages of the competition.

The tournament does run for a long time, with England's opener on the 5th October and the final not until the 19th of November.

England have to submit their 15-man World Cup squad, with three reserves permitted, by the 5th of September. Although they can actually make unlimited changes until the 27th of September, which makes the initial deadline rather pointless.

Duty281 wrote:According to the Telegraph, England are planning on taking Rooney Archer to the World Cup even if he isn't fully fit for the start of the tournament, with the hope being that he can play a part in the later stages of the competition.

The tournament does run for a long time, with England's opener on the 5th October and the final not until the 19th of November.

England have to submit their 15-man World Cup squad, with three reserves permitted, by the 5th of September. Although they can actually make unlimited changes until the 27th of September, which makes the initial deadline rather pointless.

Think we saw in 2019 with Jason Roy's injury just *how* long this tournament is - it really is a grind as much as it is ability.
Definitely worth taking Archer if they think he'll be fit and firing by mid-end of the group stuff, and potential knockout games.

Be interesting to see if they take Archer as a reserve, or in the 15 (I presume you can in theory call up reserves for someone in the 15 at any point?)

I think replacements during the tournament need to be due to injury. Lord knows who is policing that though. Given most players have some form of injury at any time it wouldn't exactly be difficult for sides to play the system. Say you realise you're carrying too many seamers and not enough spinners then finding a seamer to replace who's effectively bowling on one leg or with a buckled back wouldn't be difficult!

The tournament is basically as long as the Ashes. 

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brooks, Livingstone, jacks
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen, Rehan

Reserves: Salt, Dawson, Topley

Are they looking at something like in an ideal world do we reckon?

king_carlos wrote:I think replacements during the tournament need to be due to injury. Lord knows who is policing that though. Given most players have some form of injury at any time it wouldn't exactly be difficult for sides to play the system. Say you realise you're carrying too many seamers and not enough spinners then finding a seamer to replace who's effectively bowling on one leg or with a buckled back wouldn't be difficult!

The tournament is basically as long as the Ashes. 

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brooks, Livingstone, jacks
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen, Rehan

Reserves: Salt, Dawson, Topley

Are they looking at something like in an ideal world do we reckon?

Kind of hard to tell until the squads are announced for upcoming ODIs...but I would suspect Salt is ahead of Jacks in the pecking order at the moment for ODIs, maybe vice versa for T20s.
I'd also reckon Dawson is ahead of Rehan, in fact not sure Rehan would be in the squad with Dilly/Moeen/Dawson/Livingstone. I suspect they'd have another seamer in reserve, maybe Stone and/or another quick quick

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I think replacements during the tournament need to be due to injury. Lord knows who is policing that though. Given most players have some form of injury at any time it wouldn't exactly be difficult for sides to play the system. Say you realise you're carrying too many seamers and not enough spinners then finding a seamer to replace who's effectively bowling on one leg or with a buckled back wouldn't be difficult!

The tournament is basically as long as the Ashes. 

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brooks, Livingstone, jacks
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen, Rehan

Reserves: Salt, Dawson, Topley

Are they looking at something like in an ideal world do we reckon?

Kind of hard to tell until the squads are announced for upcoming ODIs...but I would suspect Salt is ahead of Jacks in the pecking order at the moment for ODIs, maybe vice versa for T20s.
I'd also reckon Dawson is ahead of Rehan, in fact not sure Rehan would be in the squad with Dilly/Moeen/Dawson/Livingstone. I suspect they'd have another seamer in reserve, maybe Stone and/or another quick quick

I would guess that there won't be space for either Salt or Jacks, with Topley/Willey being in as an extra seamer instead and Malan the only backup batter—seems to way they usually structure the squads.

I think there's a certain 13, pending fitness, and that is:

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brook, Livingstone
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen

I'd be surprised if both Jacks and Rehan are included. I think on top of that 13 they'll be looking for one extra spinner, which will be one of Jacks/Rehan/Dawson, and one extra pace bowler, which will be one of Topley/Stone/Carse/Mahmood.

Right now, a starting XI for the opener looks like being Bairstow, Malan, Root, Brook, Buttler, Livingstone, Moeen, Woakes, Rashid, Wood and one of SCurran/Topley/Stone.

But there's 7 ODIs left to sort out squad places and hierarchy.

Duty281 wrote:I think there's a certain 13, pending fitness, and that is:

Batters: Bairstow, Malan, Roy, Root, Brook, Livingstone
Keepers: Buttler
Seamers: Archer, Wood, Woakes, Surran
Spinners: Dilly, Moeen

I'd be surprised if both Jacks and Rehan are included. I think on top of that 13 they'll be looking for one extra spinner, which will be one of Jacks/Rehan/Dawson, and one extra pace bowler, which will be one of Topley/Stone/Carse/Mahmood.

Right now, a starting XI for the opener looks like being Bairstow, Malan, Root, Brook, Buttler, Livingstone, Moeen, Woakes, Rashid, Wood and one of SCurran/Topley/Stone.

But there's 7 ODIs left to sort out squad places and hierarchy.

WC Squad (much the same as yours)

1 Bairstow
2 Malan
3 Root
4 Brook
5 Buttler
6 Livingstone
7 Ali
8 Curran
9 Woakes
10 Wood
11 Rashid
12 Archer
13 Topley
14 Roy
15 Duckett

Missing out - Salt, Ahmed, Mahmood, Jacks, Dawson, Jordan, Stone, Willey, Carse?

Think Duty's squad 13 and addition chances looks pretty good.  But I will be amazed if those named are all fit at the right time as it never seems to work out like that !

Fortunately they do seem to have plenty of decent cover options these days.

In response to Jetty, I'd be surprised if they go with Duckett. He had three ODIs against South Africa earlier this year, but didn't do much in any of them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66425959

News also that Cummins fractured his wrist on the first day of the fifth test v England, but played through it. He'll now face some rehabilitation, though he should be fine for the World Cup.

I see Tim Wigmore has reported that England are likely to schedule a one off test match against Zimbabwe ahead of the 5 match series vs India in the summer of 2025. Zimbabwe A to tour England next year too, and face the Lions.

Hope that gets finalised - as much as playing Australia/India are the most important series, think it is important England get plenty of games vs other test nations, and actually am not totally against next summers schedule of two three test series against SL and WI.

Still harping on about booking another test tour of Bangladesh - do it!

alfie wrote:Think Duty's squad 13 and addition chances looks pretty good.  But I will be amazed if those named are all fit at the right time as it never seems to work out like that !

Fortunately they do seem to have plenty of decent cover options these days.

Yep, many cover options but the threat of sicknotes never seems far away for our speedsters and seamers. Archer, Stone, Topley, Wood and Surran all getting understandable shout outs from Duty and Jetty although none have the best of records when it comes to fitness and avoiding injuries, not even Surran.

A slightly outside bet for additional cover could be Surrey's Gus Atkinson. 25 year old right armer used sparingly by the Oval outfit but the pace and lift he's generated in his appearances across the formats has come on very considerably this season. He impressed again when I saw him on Sunday in The Hundred and took a deserved and tidy threefer.

I say slightly outside bet as he's starting to get mentioned in the written media whilst both Finn and Cook have referenced him on Sky. He's behind others in the England pecking order at present but if injuries do rule others out for either the World Cup or the Test tour of India in early 2024, his name could come up when squads are selected. Certainly, if he maintains the progress he's made in the last year and builds upon it, he could well be a proper contender for international recognition a little further into the future.

dummy_half wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:While scanning the series details , I note that Australia had four centuries to England's three.

However their next best were five scores in the seventies (71 to 77) ; while England managed some nine scores between 78 and 99 - plus a couple more "low" seventies. Perhaps we shouldn't complain so much that England bats fail to make the most of their good starts ?[/quote]

My man Stewart would and does.

It depends a bit on how the innings is going overall though - England's second innings in the last test had a top score of 91 (and Root getting out to one he could do very little about - turned and didn't bounce, pretty much the only ball to do that all match), but also two 70s and two 40s, so we got to just under 400, which is a more than adequate score. In that context, failing to get the daddy hundred is less significant. Lords second innings, while Stokes batted magnificently, only Duckett also made a worthwhile score, and we fell a bit short. Runs for the team are runs whether scored by 2 or 5 different batsmen...

That's unquestionably and obviously true. Stewart's general point though is that it's not unusual for some of your main batters to fail and so a batsman having got in and reached 50 owes it to himself and his team to properly go on. Hence his mantra, ''Fifties don't often win you games.''

Duty281 wrote:
...

All very much the intangibles of why we love sport so much. I very much like my alternative world where Liam Dawson gets picked, and takes 5/51 as he bowls England to victory at Edgbaston.

Apologies for belated agreement and addition. Yes, the beauty of most sports and especially cricket is that you never know what will happen and what would have happened if things had been done even slightly differently.

Many mention Stokes' declaration on the opening day of the first Test and that had he not done so, Root and Robinson would have scored shedloads together on the second morning rather than our bowling 4 wicketless overs that first evening. Just maybe in a further alternative world, Stokes still declared on that first evening but a few minutes later and in the 2 overs available to England we picked up the wickets of Khawaja and night watchman Boland ....

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:I see Tim Wigmore has reported that England are likely to schedule a one off test match against Zimbabwe ahead of the 5 match series vs India in the summer of 2025. Zimbabwe A to tour England next year too, and face the Lions.

Hope that gets finalised - as much as playing Australia/India are the most important series, think it is important England get plenty of games vs other test nations, and actually am not totally against next summers schedule of two three test series against SL and WI.

Still harping on about booking another test tour of Bangladesh - do it!

I'd like to see them combine tours where possible; say go to SA and play a Test (series) against Zimbabwe while the white ball games are being played, and during the Test series play white ball games in Zim/Namibia. Same for India/Pakistan and SL/Bangladesh (and maybe Afghanistan/Nepal/etc.). Big 3 all have enough players to make it work.

New Zealand ODI squad for England tour: Tom Latham (capt & wk), Finn Allen, Trent Boult, Devon Conway (wk), Lockie Ferguson, Matt Henry, Kyle Jamieson, Adam Milne, Daryl Mitchell, Henry Nicholls, Glenn Phillips, Rachin Ravindra, Mitchell Santner, Tim Southee, Will Young.

New Zealand T20 squad for England tour: Tim Southee (capt), Finn Allen, Mark Chapman, Devon Conway (wk), Lockie Ferguson, Matt Henry, Kyle Jamieson, Adam Milne, Daryl Mitchell, Jimmy Neesham, Glenn Phillips. Rachin Ravindra, Mitchell Santner, Tim Seifert (wk), Ish Sodhi.

New Zealand have put together their squads for the limited overs games v England. Main news is that Boult is back in the NZ ODI setup, Kyle Jamieson is making a return from injury (again), and Williamson will not play a part because he is still recovering from injury. Indeed, Williamson's participation in the World Cup still looks unlikely.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Think Duty's squad 13 and addition chances looks pretty good.  But I will be amazed if those named are all fit at the right time as it never seems to work out like that !

Fortunately they do seem to have plenty of decent cover options these days.

Yep, many cover options but the threat of sicknotes never seems far away for our speedsters and seamers. Archer, Stone, Topley, Wood and Surran all getting understandable shout outs from Duty and Jetty although none have the best of records when it comes to fitness and avoiding injuries, not even Surran.

A slightly outside bet for additional cover could be Surrey's Gus Atkinson. 25 year old right armer used sparingly by the Oval outfit but the pace and lift he's generated in his appearances across the formats has come on very considerably this season. He impressed again when I saw him on Sunday in The Hundred and took a deserved and tidy threefer.

I say slightly outside bet as he's starting to get mentioned in the written media whilst both Finn and Cook have referenced him on Sky. He's behind others in the England pecking order at present but if injuries do rule others out for either the World Cup or the Test tour of India in early 2024, his name could come up when squads are selected. Certainly, if he maintains the progress he's made in the last year and builds upon it, he could well be a proper contender for international recognition a little further into the future.

Clocked at 95mph in the Hundred game tonight. Whether or not speeds are slightly exaggerated in these tournaments (they definitely are), he is sharp and that pace vaults you up pecking orders fast.

Let's hope he's more Simon Jones than Sajid Mahmood if he gets a chance

That is interesting. I was going to ask our Surrey contingent about Atkinson as I'd been reading a few quite bullish comments about him - and his speeds - in one or two places ; and was wondering how much is hype and how much reality.

A 95 clocking sounds pretty impressive ! (With due reservations about accuracy) as he is still listed on Cricinfo as "fast medium". His CC figures seem to be trending upwards and it looks as if he can bat a bit too. I do wonder if he might even be an outside bet for the India tour - or is that too much of a step up at this stage ?

Atkinson has been rated by the coaches for a while apparently. They seem to view him as having the capacity to get quicker but also the raw skills to move the ball both off the pitch and through the air. He's been compared to Mark Wood a bit in that regard. When I've seen Atkinson in person he reminded more of a younger Broad with that raw ability to move the ball in different ways but also the ability to crank it up to the higher end of fast-medium. He isn't as tall as Broad though.

Dillon Pennington is another name I've heard they view like that. He may not be up there in the CC wickets and averages, though his stats are decent, but the coaches apparently think he has the physical attributes to potentially succeed in conditions other English seamers don't. He's listed as 6'2" online but having seen him play in person I'd be astonished if that's correct! Maybe he was measured at academy level and it hasn't been updated. He was clearly one of the tallest on the pitch though.

The coaches really rate Sam Cook too despite that relative lack of pace. They seem to think there's a bit more there than with Jamie Porter for instance. I rate Cook but do struggle to see how you fit Cook and Robinson into the same XI for instance, even in England. Unless they have a spinner who can bat at 7 (Rehan...?) to allow 4 seamers.

I'd bet that those three could all be involved with the Lions though with Atkinson and Cook maybe around the squads next summer.

That India tour is so hard (impossible...?) to predict though. We don't know who might be injured from the CWC. We've no idea if Stokes' operation is going to allow him to bowl or just walk without being in agony.

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Stokes 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Bairstow 7.Foakes (wk) 8.Rehan 9.Wood/Tongue 10.Leach 11.Anderson/Robinson

I'd guess something like that? It feels so far off though.

Looking at that I guess Atkinson's strength is that he could feasibly cover the quicker role of Wood/Tongue better than many and the accurate seamer role of Anderson/Robinson too. So he certainly feels more likely than others as a touring option for that reason.

I'd definitely have Surran in the squad in case we see a pitch that looks like a road. Then I'd consider him at 7 to add a 3rd seamer if Stokes can't bowl.

Anything could happen though. Jof might make a miraculous return to full fitness. Wood might not be fit. Olly Stone might get fit. Or all of them might be crocked leading to Brydon Carse being discussed!

alfie wrote:That is interesting.  I was going to ask our Surrey contingent about Atkinson as I'd been reading a few quite bullish comments about him - and his speeds - in one or two places ; and was wondering how much is hype and how much reality.

A 95 clocking sounds pretty impressive ! (With due reservations about accuracy) as he is still listed on Cricinfo as "fast medium".  His CC figures seem to be trending upwards and it looks as if he can bat a bit too.  I do wonder if he might even be an outside bet for the India tour - or is that too much of a step up at this stage ?

Sounds like he is going to be in the T20 squad for the games vs NZ - so they want a closer look!

Gus Atkinson on England radar for New Zealand T20Is
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/england-gus-atkinson-new-zealand-t20i-series-1391702

I was going to say I suspect Atkinson is much closer to cracking the white ball squads than red ball - he's been in and out of the Surrey red ball side this summer.

I see in the article JDizzle posted it mentions the ODI/T20i tour of the WIndies this winter post world cup, pre-India as one they're likely to rest all the first choice seamers - seems likely he gets some games then and we see who is on the wider radar as well

king_carlos wrote:That India tour is so hard (impossible...?) to predict though. We don't know who might be injured from the CWC. We've no idea if Stokes' operation is going to allow him to bowl or just walk without being in agony.

1.Crawley 2.Duckett 3.Stokes 4.Root 5.Brook 6.Bairstow 7.Foakes (wk) 8.Rehan 9.Wood/Tongue 10.Leach 11.Anderson/Robinson

I'd guess something like that? It feels so far off though.

I struggle to see them dropping Pope, or Stokes bowling, so I suspect Foakes might not travel. Especially after the way Bairstow hit out at the criticism of his keeping.

Tongue proved himself overseas on a Lions match in Sri Lanka 153/8, maybe Atkinson needs to go on a Lions tour first.

Cook Lions stats 54.75 (small sample 2 matches)


@mroller98
England to consider picking Gus Atkinson for their T20 series against New Zealand. Squad expected next week